The question Tat posits in the comic is vague, not necessarily answerable, and is really meant to foster more discussion, NOT more arguments and fighting.

To answer the question (Will men ever change?), I would answer "Only as much as they are forced to." Overall, especially as groups, I'd say people tend to range from being resistant to downright unwilling to change in anyway unless forced to do so. This applies to ALMOST anyone, in ALMOST any situation, at ALMOST any time. Anyone looking for exceptions to this is missing the point of what I'm saying and needs to re-read it.

Notice I'm not addressing any other kinds of issues, like "Should men change? How much should many change? In what ways should men change? Why do men need to change? etc...", they aren't the question being asked, so I'm also not going to answer those nor am I going to address them here (or elsewhere) but HOWEVER I would suggest that anyone wanting to debate might start with asking those kinds of questions._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

We've seen a lot of comics abut how women should NOT act if they want to be free of gender stereotypes,

It's not about how they SHOULDN'T act, more like how they shouldn't be EXPECTED to act.

This, right here, is the problem with the whole movement. All women are different. The movement should be, "If you are an unhappy woman, here's where you may be experiencing common misconceptions and here are some ways you can overcome them."

Instead, it's, "If you are unhappy, men are the problem and society needs to change to suit your ideals and make the world more fair to you."

The second route focuses entirely on men, women's relationship with men, how men should behave, what men can do differently, and so on. It's so weak. It's so passive. It's so useless. Even if we just take it on faith that all women need this movement, what sense does it make to put the burden of change on the party that's benefiting from the oppression? That's the party that should, however witlessly we may presume, be happy with things the way they are._________________Everyone thinks they are individuals who follow their own rules. However, man is a being of patterns. He has habits because without them he would cease to be. Though perhaps possessed of creativity, he will always be merely human.

that's what they said when black folks started demanding equal rights and fair treatment from the white folks, too

seriously. why put the burden of change on the party that's benefiting from the oppressing? because they're doing the oppressing and if you want the oppressing to stop they're the ones that will have to change.

please, Ashland, for everyone's sake, quit trying to talk about feminism. you don't know a single goddamned thing about it, you actively refuse to even try to learn, and every time you open your mouth about it, you further prove that you don't know a single goddamned thing about it. i'm starting to suspect you're an alt account for Guest or something.

that's what they said when black folks started demanding equal rights and fair treatment from the white folks, too

seriously. why put the burden of change on the party that's benefiting from the oppressing? because they're doing the oppressing and if you want the oppressing to stop they're the ones that will have to change.

please, Ashland, for everyone's sake, quit trying to talk about feminism. you don't know a single goddamned thing about it, you actively refuse to even try to learn, and every time you open your mouth about it, you further prove that you don't know a single goddamned thing about it. i'm starting to suspect you're an alt account for Guest or something.

But you don't know anything about the civil rights movement and you keep bringing it up as if it's a fair comparison. I've told you before: it's not.

Even if it were, you have to bear in mind that during the civil rights era, people were actively trying to get into good schools, good jobs, and were proactive about earning their respect. They didn't sit around saying, "Will white people ever change?" They had objectives - equal legal rights, equal job opportunities, equal education opportunities, the right to use the same drinking fountains. Those things were fought for both politically and with violence, though the latter method can be criticized in the current era.

How is civil rights and feminism equivalent to you?

Even if I sit down and play along in the hopes someone will try to indoctrinate me with true words of the faith, all I get is empty complaints about society. What do you want society to do? And don't go over this "we want society to recognize that women etc" again. What kind of concrete action would you like society to take so that we can say, without a doubt, that feminism is now satiated and the world is at peace?_________________Everyone thinks they are individuals who follow their own rules. However, man is a being of patterns. He has habits because without them he would cease to be. Though perhaps possessed of creativity, he will always be merely human.

i see you've conveniently overlooked all those little concrete things like "fair rape laws" and "equal pay for equal work" and "no government meddling in contraception" and "equal education opportunities" and "equal legal rights" and "equal job opportunities" and so on

feminists actually don't seem to be just sitting there saying "when will men change?" on the other hand, you seem to be just sitting there saying "when will feminists change?" which is all kinds of ironic

almost as ironic as how you clearly don't know anything about the civil rights movement because they also had more abstract and general complaints about society as a whole. hence groups like the black separatist movements.

and, interestingly enough, feminism itself was part of the civil rights movement! it's called second-wave feminism and it got its start in the 1960s, right in the midst of the rest of the civil rights movement. it drew off of and was deeply involved in the rest of the civil rights movement. it is part of the civil rights movement.

which just goes to show even further that you know not a single goddamned thing about feminism.

which also makes it ironic when you get up here and bellow about how i "don't know anything about the civil rights movement" when you aren't aware that feminism is part of the civil rights movement! it's spectacular.

so that's how civil rights and feminism are equivalent to me: they're the same fucking thing. so yeah, i do get to compare feminism and the civil rights movement, 'cuz feminism is part of the fucking civil rights movement

that's what they said when black folks started demanding equal rights and fair treatment from the white folks, too

Seriously you keep talking about them black folk civil rights, wtf were you ALIVE then to see how it exactly went down and see what those people actually said?
Were you there to be 100% certain that, YES it is the same kind of issue?
No, the truth is you're just popping up this attempts at shaming your oposition ( typical feminist tactic i might add ).

"Oh you don't agree with me? Then you must agree with this heinous crime totally unrelated !"

so that's how civil rights and feminism are equivalent to me: they're the same fucking thing. so yeah, i do get to compare feminism and the civil rights movement, 'cuz feminism is part of the fucking civil rights movement

game, set, match.

Then you have no idea what civil rights ARE if feminism = civil rights for all.
Simple. Further discussion is pointless as you are already admiting you clearly don't understand the difference.

And claiming your own victory at every post with "game .set. match. " and other such ridiculous statements does not mean you're right nor you're in any authority to tell me to shut up and accept your flawed views.

which also makes it ironic when you get up here and bellow about how i "don't know anything about the civil rights movement" when you aren't aware that feminism is part of the civil rights movement!

Civil
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or consisting of citizens: civil life; civil society.
2.
of the commonwealth or state: civil affairs.
3.
of citizens in their ordinary capacity, or of the ordinary life and affairs of citizens, as distinguished from military and ecclesiastical life and affairs.
4.
of the citizen as an individual: civil liberty.
5.
befitting a citizen: a civil duty.

I think this is where you're getting confused. "Civil" refers to civil issues. Matters related to being a citizen and the rights granted to citizens. During the civil rights movement, the object was to gain equal civil rights for all citizens regardless of race.

Granting women the right to vote is an example of a civil right, but that battle is over and won.

Feminism, as a movement, is not explicitly seeking additional civil rights. You may argue that abortion is an issue of civil liberties, but bear in mind, that issue is targeted at women only because it cannot be targeted anywhere else, not actually because of a patriarchy. Wanting the right to abort an unborn child is an issue that brings up a lot of serious moral and ethical questions, not just for the state, but also for the people involved. It's frustrating how you marginalize it into "women's empowerment".

While I may or may not believe in free choice (it not being an issue here), a woman is not empowered by her ability to abort children anymore than you could say a doctor is empowered by his ability to "make comfortable" a terminal patient. Some people also believe that a dying, suffering man should be forced to hang on until his last, strangled breath.

Further, you could note that the issue of abortion questions not only whether women should have the liberty to terminate a life, but if doctors should also have that liberty, regardless of the gender of the doctor.

But because you keep bringing up civil rights, I think we should back up and explain to you the difference between rights, liberties, and social status, because you seem to be struggling here.

A civil right are powers granted to you by the government, such as the ability to vote, apply for tax breaks, go to school (only until college in the US), and so forth. These are the kinds of things the civil rights movement mainly aimed to make equal in its time.

Civil liberties are aspects of your life that the government explicitly claims it will not infringe upon. The liberty to write what you will in the free press, the liberty to own firearms, and the liberty to follow a religion of your choosing are good examples. The gay rights movement deals primarily in issues of civil liberty, seeking to remove government interference from their love lives.

Feminism may dabble some in the above two areas, but for the most part, it has next to nothing to do with civil issues. Women already possess as many legal rights as men, and there are no liberties from which they are explicitly excluded, abortion aside. Any part of feminism that is requesting the government to increase female hiring rates is not actually seeking additional civil rights or liberties for women - they are asking that businesses lose their civil liberty to freely make hiring choices. This is why many people look down on feminism and see it as degenerative to society.

In these cases, it becomes a question of whether or not women actually require businesses and society in general to give up their civil liberties. Feminism claims that many liberties are good for men, but the way they are bad for women is not always especially clear. If there are fewer women politicians, there is a chance that women simply enjoy politics less than some men, and it is very hard to repeal a law once passed. We're not seeing anything as grossly oppressive as what led to the civil rights movement, so is it really in our best interest to make biased laws for women at a time when women are only just now becoming comfortable in the working world? It's very possible that all we need is time, and things will balance out in a decade or so.

Because these questions are hard to answer, Feminism deals mainly in the domain of social status, and social status varies from person to person.

So if you have an issue of civil liberty or civil rights that you want to discuss in relation to women, you may do so. Those things are concrete and can be drawn out on paper. We can say, "Yes, these are some inequalities. Men have these powers and freedoms that women do not".

But if you cannot plainly do that, then you are arguing an issue of social status. In which case, have at, because you're wasting your time if you want the whole world to change to understand your philosophy. If women want power, they've got to act the role. I don't see why that's so unfair._________________Everyone thinks they are individuals who follow their own rules. However, man is a being of patterns. He has habits because without them he would cease to be. Though perhaps possessed of creativity, he will always be merely human.

haven't i already disproven both Ashland and crayven? the two of you are so fucking dishonest it's hilarious. no shame whatsoever. it's spectacular.

i mean we have Ashland trying to imply that women aren't "citizens" and we have crayven thinking that only people who were alive during the civil rights movement get to talk about it. i don't need to shut you two down by saying that you're both horrendous people. every post you make proves that you are horrendous people.

horrendous and also wrong, because once again, neither of you have disproved or refuted me.

come, come, post evidence for your claims! back them up! surely you can do that if you're right.

that's right, you fucking liars. post some proof that feminists weren't part of the civil rights movement. post some proof that they don't generally still seek civil rights of some kind now. post some proof that they're "degenerate." post some proof that they just sit on their asses asking vague, ill-defined questions, like Ashland does. post some proof that "ending the rape culture" is not about civil rights--as in, the right to safety. post some proof about anything you say. no, Ashland, you oppose the empowerment of women, and anything you say to the contrary is a fucking lie, because every time anyone ever speaks about it, you try to shut them down with these empty platitudes.

but i know that you can't prove what you say. you run off whenever you're challenged to do that, because you know, deep down, that you actually are wrong, and you just aren't willing to admit it.

well, no, now that i think about it, maybe "liars" is too strong a term. so i apologize for that.

besides, now that i'm on the backswing, i know what's going on here. you're like Him and communism. Estranged, Ashland, crayven, KDX...you guys are just brainwashed.

the ultimate irony, then, is that for all the squealing you guys have done about how "feminism is a cult"...well, you guys have been a lot more cultish about it than any feminist we've seen cross these boards. you have your sacred inviolable tenets which reason cannot touch ("there is no rape culture," "there is no glass ceiling," "women are bitches tricks and hos," "feminism is like asking us to give up food," "feminists just want to sit around all day asking abstract useless questions," "feminists are against human rights," "feminists hate men," etc) you don't really think for yourself about how these things work--as evidenced by how, when it is pointed out to Ashland that feminists and feminism were part of the civil rights movement, he just repeats his usual schlock about how no it doesn't count because he says so. no amount of reason can dislodge them because not even you know how they got there. your claims have been disproven numerous times and still you cling to them, not on reason--for if you clung to them by reason you would have to give them up once they prove false--but by faith. by faith alone.

you guys are as much victims of the system as the women for whom feminists speak! they stole your critical thinking from you and made you a pawn of systems that most of you have admitted is unfair. and the saddest irony of all is that you, fellow victims of this system, are defending it. faith moves some people to do great things; evidently it moved you to stand up for a system you've admitted is unfair.

i've already proven my case. proven it several times over. so have most of the people who argue with you on this forum. that you continue to vomit up the same talking points you were fed long ago is proof itself that you aren't here because of reason. you're here because of faith.

well, no, now that i think about it, maybe "liars" is too strong a term. so i apologize for that.

besides, now that i'm on the backswing, i know what's going on here. you're like Him and communism. Estranged, Ashland, crayven, KDX...you guys are just brainwashed.

the ultimate irony, then, is that for all the squealing you guys have done about how "feminism is a cult"...well, you guys have been a lot more cultish about it than any feminist we've seen cross these boards. you have your sacred inviolable tenets which reason cannot touch ("there is no rape culture," "there is no glass ceiling," "women are bitches tricks and hos," "feminism is like asking us to give up food," "feminists just want to sit around all day asking abstract useless questions," "feminists are against human rights," "feminists hate men," etc) you don't really think for yourself about how these things work--as evidenced by how, when it is pointed out to Ashland that feminists and feminism were part of the civil rights movement, he just repeats his usual schlock about how no it doesn't count because he says so. no amount of reason can dislodge them because not even you know how they got there. your claims have been disproven numerous times and still you cling to them, not on reason--for if you clung to them by reason you would have to give them up once they prove false--but by faith. by faith alone.

You've just described your mentality only in the mirror.
The SAME things can be applied to you - ALL of them.
Sexism everywhere, the patriarchy, the wage gap bullshit and other such idiotic myths that you keep BELIEVING despite being thoroughly debunked.

ShadowCell wrote:

i've already proven my case. proven it several times over. so have most of the people who argue with you on this forum. that you continue to vomit up the same talking points you were fed long ago is proof itself that you aren't here because of reason. you're here because of faith.

it's like our old buddy paratech never left...

The only vomit comes from you and your lap dog supporters who will aprove to any crap in hope of looking "progressive" and very enlightened.
If tomorrow wearing a crap over your head would be considered progressive most of feminists here would have one as a hat.
You haven't "proved" anything, and we're not talking about studies done in the US - feminist influence is so strong there nothing coming regarding gender studies can EVER be trusted.
We're talking about - ironically - COMMON SENSE. And you sit here, with a big smile on your face, spouting sexist comments against one gender at a machine-gun rate while claiming the other sex is the victim and that how DARE WE complain we are wrongfully accused.
That's feminism for you, passive aggressive behavior at its finest.

i've proven quite a lot of things. so has pretty much anyone else who's argued with you. you've tried to come back, but it's never really worked. more often than not, when you post evidence, it's not in your favor or it's so clearly biased and flawed that it can be safely dismissed; and usually you just post screeds of tortured logic that take little effort to pick apart. as has been done numerous times.

if i haven't proven anything you would be able to show me. but, y'know, you can't. better luck next time, spanky!

Last edited by ShadowCell on Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:21 pm; edited 1 time in total